Acer CG437K P - 43" 4K@144 Hz HDR1000 AdaptiveSync

Discussion in 'Displays' started by Vega, Apr 11, 2019.

  1. Dan_D

    Dan_D [H]ard as it Gets

    Messages:
    53,577
    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2002
    I hate how these companies announce these monitors months ahead of release, often with no pricing information to speak of. We have pricing info this time at least.
     
  2. partikl

    partikl Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    144
    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2017
    Not really interested in a big o' 43" monitor, but 2560x1440 definitely does not look bad on a 4k monitor (not a 32" anyway). So the thing is to me is that 4k is nice for text clarity, and gaming can still be done at 2560x1440 at a high frame rate...or it could be if there were reasonably priced 4k 144hz monitors available. But I want 4k 144hz at ~27".
     
  3. Dan_D

    Dan_D [H]ard as it Gets

    Messages:
    53,577
    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2002
    I can't do small monitors anymore. I had 30" monitors for so long that anything below that simply won't cut it. In fact, I had three of them in Eyefinity/NVSurround for years. The 48" Samsungs were the first displays that gave me what I was looking for. 40"+ at 4K resolution. I'm eagerly looking forward to 43" displays that can do 120Hz or better with HDR and some type of variable refresh rate. So I'm keeping a close eye on possibilities coming out in the near future.
     
  4. partikl

    partikl Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    144
    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2017
    I begin wondering if 4k is really good enough at 32" (really it isn't). I mean the PPI is so low at around ~140 and it keeps getting lower at larger screen sizes. If it were a tv sitting across the room I could understand, but not for a desktop monitor that is sitting 2-3 feet away from the eyes. I want 4k (I really want higher) for how the resolution smooths things out (especially with text), not for getting a much bigger low PPI image or tons of real estate where everything is tiny.
     
    Last edited: Apr 19, 2019
  5. Zarathustra[H]

    Zarathustra[H] Official Forum Curmudgeon

    Messages:
    27,761
    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2000

    IHMO 4k is completely useless and a waste under 40".

    If you want 27" stick to 1440p. There is nothing to be gained by going up to a crazy high ppi.

    The only reason to move to 4k is so That you can get added screen real estate without having to suffer through pixel densities below 100ppi.
     
    Last edited: Apr 19, 2019
    Phalkonone and Dan_D like this.
  6. Sancus

    Sancus Gawd

    Messages:
    831
    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2013
    This is demonstrably untrue though. Compare the text clarity of a smartphone to a 1440p 27" monitor and there's no comparison -- text on the phone is much clearer and sharper. For gaming it's a different story but the line blurs due to a number of factors. For viewport games like first/third person action/shooters, yeah, high refresh rate is more important than high resolution, because your viewport is in motion a lot of the time, and sometimes very fast motion. High resolution doesn't help your motion clarity much if your refresh rate is limited to 60hz sample and hold.

    Switch it around and try strategy games or even certain kinds of RPGs where there's a lot of small detail and text in the screen everywhere and I'd take a 27" 4K monitor over a 1440p, let alone 1080p, one any day of the week. Even moreso for spreadsheeting and coding and other work tasks. 4K 27" is brilliant for that niche.

    In a perfect world we all have 300ppi monitors with 240hz scanning/strobing backlights, but in the real world there are tradeoffs and sometimes 4K27" is what you want, sometimes it's not.
     
  7. partikl

    partikl Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    144
    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2017
    Nope. Text doesn't look good on 27" 1440. You either have to turn on anti-aliasing (which is blurry) or live with patchy looking fonts, and the latter is much easier on the eyes. 4K smooths fonts out alot without the blur, and the greater the PPI (smaller monitor size at 4k) the smoother. 4K at 32" is ok'ish for text. 4k at 27" would be much better (especially with a high refresh rate). Gaming and movies look perfectly fine on a 27" at 1440, though. And 1440 is good for gaming performance. But where I am right now with 1440 is that it is a bad compromise for good gaming experience over bad looking text. I want both good looking text and good gaming performance, and good gaming performance can be had on a 4k monitor when running games at 1440. Good looking text cannot be had on a 27" at 1440 without blur or huge font sizes. But there are no real options for 27" 4K 144hz. It's a big hole in the market of current tech.

    If a 27" 4k 144hz monitor were available, the desktop scaled to 200% would have perfectly functional icon size and icon text size. Text size in bowsers and and text editors can be scaled to whatever we like any way and would look smooth enough even at smaller font sizes without anti-aliasing (sharper text). And gaming at 1440 on a 4k monitor is already a good overall experience that would be much better with a higher refresh rate.
     
    Last edited: Apr 19, 2019
  8. IdiotInCharge

    IdiotInCharge [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    9,867
    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2003
    I tried that and tried some scaling on mine, and well, I just run it native and squint.
     
  9. Zarathustra[H]

    Zarathustra[H] Official Forum Curmudgeon

    Messages:
    27,761
    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2000
    No, well anti-aliased text is perfectly clear at 100ppi, if you view it at a normal viewing distance of about 2ft.

    Maybe you sit really close?

    There is literally no reason what so ever to ever exceed 100ppi on the desktop.
     
  10. partikl

    partikl Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    144
    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2017
    I guess it is dependent upon individual vision, but to my eyes it is blurry. And my eyes can't deal with blurry text. My viewing distance is greater than 2 feet. Right now I'm at around 3 feet with a 32" 4K monitor, and when I turn on anti-aliasing text looks a little burrier. With it off, text looks a little jaggy, but jaggy isn't hard on the eyes, where blurry definitely is. I'm using Cleartype Switch, which allows for quickly toggling anti-aliasing for easy comparison. Also, the text rendering in most PDF readers looks unbearably blurry to me. I usually use Firefox for PDF's (with anti-aliasing switched off at the OS level) since it renders PDF text the same as web content, without the blurriness that can't be switched off in dedicated PDF readers. And to be clear here, I'm not talking about only an aesthetic preference. The blurriness that I see with anti-aliasing on gives me eye fatigue. So it is very much a functional thing. The aesthetic part of it is preferring high PPI so that fonts don't look so jaggy and broken up with anti-aliasing turned off. 4k on a 32" monitor (~140 PPI) is just a bit too far on the low PPI side for my eyes. For example, I really notice jagginess on the letter 'w' at this PPI.

    Also, I'm pretty sure at this point that what I am noticing between differences of VA to IPS and TN is that the backlighting on VA is easier on the eyes but text is a little softer looking with VA. For whatever reason I am able to run the backlight signficantly brighter on VA monitors without eye fatigue from the backlight. But the tradeoff is a little less sharp text on VA. And there is more color shifting on VA than IPS, but that is only an aesthetic concern, not a functional one for text.
     
    Last edited: Apr 19, 2019
  11. Zarathustra[H]

    Zarathustra[H] Official Forum Curmudgeon

    Messages:
    27,761
    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2000

    I dont know man. I'm corrected to better than 20/20, so I have no problem on the vision front

    Ever since cleartype text at 100dpi and ~2ft distance has been perfect. Not even a hint of blur.
     
  12. Vega

    Vega [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    6,065
    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2004
    4K 27" is sweet for desktop work. Using my Acer X27" it was the best "desktop" monitor I've ever used. Everything looked like a magazine. BUT, 27" 4K is a total waste for gaming. A lot of that extra ppi/detail is lost in games, and 27" doesn't have much of an immersion factor. IMO 32" 4K is the "sweet spot" compromise. But ultimately I prefer 40-43" 4K due to the immersion factor for games. I'll definitely be getting this Acer.
     
    Sancus likes this.
  13. partikl

    partikl Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    144
    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2017
    I think that unless you run with anti-aliasing off for a while, you don't know what you don't know. I got my vision checked last year, and I'm 20/20 (no correction). Not bad, but not exceptional either. After a couple of rounds of eye strain, I tried all sorts of things including switching off anti-aliasing. And now I can not go back to that blurry hell. :inpain:
     
  14. partikl

    partikl Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    144
    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2017
    I think 4K detail is mostly lost even at 32" for gaming. I mean, I can run games at 1440 on a 32" 4K and barely notice any difference from running native. So then to me, 4K is excellent for text work and still very good for gaming at 1440 since it looks very close to the same as native and allows for much better gpu performance. I don't really notice any immersion loss with smaller monitors. Hell, I gamed on a 15" laptop for a couple of years and very much got into the games that I was playing.
     
  15. elvn

    elvn 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,121
    Joined:
    May 5, 2006
    There is the PG27UQ 27" 144hz 4k of course. Back when I first got into 1440p , before the B-grade korean knockoffs, a 27" 1440p 60hz was $1200 or more as were 30" 1600p. Almost $1 per "p". In today's dollars that's + $140 or more to the price tag. Add FALD and G-sync to the price and you have an expensive display. So 4k 144hz at 27" is a;ready available just at a high price. For awhile when 120hz first hit I ran a 27" 1080p 120hz samsung next to the 1440p 27" cinema display for the tradeoffs.

    perceived ppi of 40+ " 4k at 3' or more
    --------------------------------------------------------
    I'm in the camp of 40"+ 4k being the most useful to me. At 3' distance the perceived pixel density, which is essentially shrunk slightly by extra distance, is quite good at 100% scaling. When I add a 43" 144hz gaming monitor to the middle replacing my 32" 1440p, I'll move back even farther than 3' to get more out of the extra wide array. I'll try 3.5' at first and go from there. At 3' + I'm getting to the point where some text will require scaling. For the most part I don't scale anything at my current 3' viewing distance though.

    text size, text and background colors by individual apps
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    I use nosquint addon for my browswer which can scale by text or whole site including images as well as change background color and text color on a global or per site basis, which it remembers. I also use directory opus 3rd party file manager which can change the file browser fonts, colors, background colors, etc and scales text +/- per independent tabbed file browser pane on the fly using ctrl+mouse wheel just like a web browser. My other apps have their own text size options and even twitch has an addon for chat window font sizing. So I don't have to scale my whole desktop and I can tune on the fly to what I want. Text looks great with cleartype tuning at 3'. That text is also being used on medium grey and darker backgrounds (hardforum and steam's default themes are great, twitch dark mode, viber chat/texting app night mode, windows 10 grey minimal theme, nosquint on browser, 3rd party notepad and file manager with dark grey theme, thunderbird email font size and grey background by addon, etc).

    Perceived ppi 15" 4k near vs 43" 4k 3'+, font sizes
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    There is a considerable difference in perceived ppi ,especially on text, from 1.5' away and 3' or more away. Another thing to remember is don't change your font size smaller than your ppi and cleartype can handle or it will look terrible. I have a 15" 4k laptop so I have a basis for comparison.
     
    Last edited: Apr 19, 2019
  16. partikl

    partikl Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    144
    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2017
    Yep, that is 1 of 3 current options for 27" 4K high refresh + variable refresh monitors that I see available, and it is prohibitively expensive. But there are many 27" 4K monitors available that aren't too expensive, just not with both a high refresh rate and variable refresh rate. And there are no VA options at all below 31.5".
     
  17. partikl

    partikl Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    144
    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2017
    Actually, I think that running games at 1440 is better on a 4K monitor than running them at native 4K, since at 1440 quality settings can be cranked up along with much higher refresh rate.
     
  18. Zarathustra[H]

    Zarathustra[H] Official Forum Curmudgeon

    Messages:
    27,761
    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2000
    If you don't mind me asking. How old are you?

    I wonder if this is an age thing. Those of us who used computers in the 80's and 90's maybe are used to font quality so much worse than today that it just doesn't stand out to us?

    I remember the first time I saw one of Apples super high resolution screens, and I hated it. The fonts looked too smooth and not natural to me.

    Since then I have had a series of high ppi phones, so I guess I've gotten used to it, but still, proper cleartype fonts at 100 dpi look perfect to me.
     
  19. elvn

    elvn 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,121
    Joined:
    May 5, 2006
    For gaming, my 1440p 32" is good. For text, it actually looks a lot better at 3' than 1.5 - 2' but it's not optimal for desktop stuff. The 43" 4k screen's perceived ppi for desktop/apps at 3' is great though and I get sooo much more desktop real-estate. It's glorious.

    For reference, this is the amount of desktop space you get with different monitors all at around 108.8 ppi. The 4k in this schematic would be ~40.8"

    nVW9JAA.jpg
     
  20. partikl

    partikl Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    144
    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2017
    I'm 40. I spent some years with CRT's (my last was a big ol Trinitron that I used for maybe 5 years), then CCFL. I started getting eye fatigue after switching to W-LED a couple of years after W-LED became the norm (years ago!...time flies). After that I began really thinking about what I am looking at on a screen. Major eye killers to me are any form of blur, PWM (and general flickering), too high brightness, too much blue light.
     
    Last edited: Apr 19, 2019
  21. partikl

    partikl Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    144
    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2017
    I have a monitor here that is 25" 1440 which puts it at 108 PPI. To me, the resolution is not fine enough aesthetically. It is sharp enough, but fonts look jaggy and broken up with anti-aliasing turned off. I want sharpness and smooth looking fonts without blur. And 32" size is already too big to me, and bigger would be worse. I feel like I am looking up too much and too far to the sides too much. I feel that 25" is a little too small. I think 27-28" is just right for me, and at 4K it should give just enough smoothness to fonts so that they don't look jaggy and broken up.
     
  22. elvn

    elvn 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,121
    Joined:
    May 5, 2006
    You are sitting closer to a 25" than I am with a 43" at 3' or more so your pixels look larger.

    I switch from 15" 4k laptop at 1.5' or less to my desk setup at 3' with 4k 43" displays with zero problems. Only the 32" 1440p (93 ppi) is such a low ppi as to be blocky ... and even that isn't horrible to use at 3' with cleartype on and a large enough font to not destroy the font structure and cleartype subpixel rendering. It's just a bit jumbo outside of games on the desktop like an old 1080p 27" (81.59 ppi) would be though not quite that bad especially a foot farther back than the regular 2'.


    Idk why you'd turn cleartype off especially when text is becoming almost small enough to require scaling to be read without straining to see it at the proper viewing distance. There is no way you would see blurred text edges unless you were sitting too close. It's like zooming far in to an edge in photoshop, but when you zoom out it looks perfect.

    The other common culprit is setting your font size too small compared to the ppi and subpixel rendering capability of your monitor, which again on a ~100 to 110ppi monitor would likely be because you are sitting too close and trying to make the text too small.

    2so0hsf.jpg
     
    Last edited: Apr 19, 2019
    Zarathustra[H] likes this.
  23. kasakka

    kasakka [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,046
    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2008
    27" 1440p is already pretty sharp but I feel at 100% scaling text sizing is too small so I either use mine at 125% scaling because Windows doesn't provide anything smaller or use 100% scaling with increased font sizes (in Windows this is in the Ease of Access menus).

    I recently compared a 32" and 43" 4K display at a store and played with the scaling settings and felt that I could get very similar results from them. 27" 4K runs into the same issues I have with 1440p where either text is too small or you have to compromise on desktop real estate.
     
    Zarathustra[H] likes this.
  24. partikl

    partikl Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    144
    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2017
    My viewing distance with the 25" 1440 monitor is around 2.5 feet, because that is where text is comfortable to read. It isn't only about size of text. It is also about thickness of fonts and clearly seeing the edges of fonts to feel comfortable reading text. So the thing is to me, if I were looking at your 43" 4k with a PPI of 108 at a 3 foot distance, I would not feel comfortable reading it even if the fonts were big, because of the distance and the low PPI. I am looking at a 32" 4K right now at a 3 feet distance (which is a significantly higher PPI at 140), and the PPI is still too low for my eyes. And when I switch on cleartype, fonts look blurry to me at 140 PPI at a 3 feet viewing distance. The edges of the fonts become way too soft to feel comfortable to read over time for me. I have played around alot with text anti-aliasing in Windows and Linux, and at this point I know what looks and feels comfortable to me and what doesn't. Also at lower PPI, in cases where I want a bit smaller fonts (with anti-aliasing off, because it bothers my eyes), fonts look really bad. But at even just 140 PPI, I can scale fonts down so small that I can't read them without them turning into a broken up mess. But they still look a bit jaggy, which would be solved by the higher PPI provided by a 27" 4K display.

    Any way, I get it that you prefer a lower PPI in trade for a huge amount of screen space, but that doesn't work for me personally. I don't want a huge amount of screen space. The space provided by 2560x1440 is more than enough for me, even with some scaling. But I cannot stand blurry fonts, and so for me 4K is not about providing more screen space but about providing more clarity. I think Apple got it very right with the 27" Imac, which provides a good amount of screen space at a good size for the desktop and with a 200 PPI. They absolutely nailed it. And I wonder why monitor manufacturers aren't jumping all over that. I think that combo is about as good as a desktop monitor can get.

    But Imac aside, I would likely be very happy with VA 27-28" 4K with a high refresh rate and of decent quality that doesn't cost an arm and a leg.
     
    Last edited: Apr 20, 2019
  25. partikl

    partikl Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    144
    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2017
    27" 4K can be scaled to whatever you like. I assume that in Windows 10 you can set a custom DPI (which should be called PPI) as you can in Windows 7. I have mine set right now to 180 on a 32" 4K monitor, and eveything is of a good size. I just don't like the honking size of a 32" monitor because I am looking up and side to side too much, even at a 3 foot viewing distance. The size and the viewing distance feels awkward to me, and I practically have the thing falling off the back of my desk.
     
  26. elvn

    elvn 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,121
    Joined:
    May 5, 2006
    You just refuse to use aliasing. People use it in games too, and my comparison to zooming in to an edge in photoshop to work on it, then zooming out to where it looks great applies to sub pixel cleartype aliasing. The fact that you stubbornly refuse to alias text even when a screen is pretty far from your face where the default text size would be pretty small and the percieved ppi is shrunk a bit makes your needs quite strange and I doubt it applies to most people without binoculars . Personally I find it odd and pretty irrelevant.

    My text looks nice and smooth with cleartype 3' away on my 43" 4k at default text size as well as on my 15" 4k laptop at 1.5' or less utilizing scaling 125 - 150% and/or by app.
     
    Last edited: Apr 20, 2019
  27. partikl

    partikl Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    144
    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2017
    I'm telling you that it looks blurry to me. When I switch it on the edges of fonts get very soft. And I have already been through this over the years. Turning it on makes my eyes fatigue much faster than with it off. I can't help you to accept what I see vs. what you see. Turning it on looks like a poor man's OLED.

    Text anti-aliasing is analogous to filtering away high frequencies in audio. I would be saying that I can't hear the high frequencies with the filter on, and you would be telling me that I'm just being stubborn, because you can't hear the high frequencies any way. :whistle:
     
    Last edited: Apr 20, 2019
  28. WorldExclusive

    WorldExclusive [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,860
    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2009
    After 4 years, I can finally begin to retire my 2015 Samsung JU6700.
    A 120Hz native, 4K. 40"+ VA panel with HDR and adaptive sync is what I wanted........and it's here.
     
  29. Dan_D

    Dan_D [H]ard as it Gets

    Messages:
    53,577
    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2002
    I'm using a KS8500, but before that I had the same JU6700. That one had a problem which led to an image issue at the bottom of the screen which is why I replaced it. But I want what you want, so this and the ASUS 43" are monitors I'll be watching closely.
     
    WorldExclusive likes this.
  30. Zarathustra[H]

    Zarathustra[H] Official Forum Curmudgeon

    Messages:
    27,761
    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2000
    I find that rather randomly I seem to be on a ~4-5 year monitor replacement schedule for the last Almost 20 years, so this one comes right on time:

    2001: 22" Iiyama Visionmaster Pro CRT
    2005: 24" 16:10 Dell 2405fpw (1920x1200)
    2010: 30" 16:10 Dell U3011 (2560x1600)
    2015: 48" 4K Samsung JS9000
    2019: Asus or Acer 43"?

    Crazy how fast the last 4 years have gone though. The other screens felt like I had them forever. I feel like I just bought the Sammy.

    Also, I kind of miss the 16:10 aspect ratio. It's a shame it has fallen by the wayside. I guess it's all in the same of cost savings though. If you can use the same panel as a 16:9 TV, then there is a lot more volume cost savings :(
     
    WorldExclusive likes this.
  31. Dan_D

    Dan_D [H]ard as it Gets

    Messages:
    53,577
    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2002
    Monitors are something I generally keep a long time.

    1999 19" Sony Trinitron
    2005 20" Viewsonic IPS
    2007 30" Dell 3007WFP
    2010 30" Dell 3007WFP-HC x3
    2015 3x27" ASUS ROG Swift (Hated these, used them a couple of months at most)
    2015 Samsung JU6700
    2017 Samsung KS8500 (Present display)
     
    Zarathustra[H] likes this.
  32. MaZa

    MaZa 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,699
    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2008
    FALD is of course always better but edge-lit HDR can be quite good. Samsung KS serie from 2017 is one example, it was good enough to get the UHD Premium tag. Now it does have some downsides, scenes with a lot of blacks and small high brightness details cause a lot of flashlighting, and subtitles for movies cause the same effect so it is better to watch them without subs. But in general the HDR picture quality is breathtaking. The backlight may not be FALD but the super high native contrast ratio (4000-5000:1) helps up with the shortcomings the edge lit local dimming.

    The pricing is of this Acer monitor does seem high but it is in range of proper UHD Premium
     
  33. WorldExclusive

    WorldExclusive [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,860
    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2009
    Before the Sammy I switched monitors every six months. The Dell 3007 and U2711 were the only two I kept longer.
    With the specs of the Acer and Asus, I'll own one of them for another 4-5 years. There's no interest in 5K-6K OLED panels for gaming until then.
     
  34. Wag

    Wag Gawd

    Messages:
    888
    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2006
    Do we think we're going to see either this one or the Asus this year or are they going to be delayed forever?
     
  35. Dan_D

    Dan_D [H]ard as it Gets

    Messages:
    53,577
    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2002
    No idea. I'm hoping the ASUS hits this year, but who knows?
     
  36. Zarathustra[H]

    Zarathustra[H] Official Forum Curmudgeon

    Messages:
    27,761
    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2000
    From what I read, Acer are claiming a September availability date for $1,200 USD, or 1,499.00 EUR, but who knows if that will actually happen.

    No word from Asus yet on either pricing or availability date.


    Wow Acer though. That is a 40% European price penalty...

    Growing up in Sweden I never know how people in the U.S. could afford to always have the latest PC hardware. I was always a generation or two behind. I was using my Pentium 150Mhz (overclocked to 200Mhz) and Voodoo1 up until ~2000 when after moving back to the U.S. I picked up a Duron 650 and a Geforce 2 GTS.

    I never knew how much of a price disparity there was.
     
  37. Martha Stewart

    Martha Stewart Gawd

    Messages:
    594
    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2011

    Probably Oct/Nov by this point
     
  38. Gatecrasher3000

    Gatecrasher3000 Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    281
    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2013
    (cries in Canadian)..
     
  39. Wag

    Wag Gawd

    Messages:
    888
    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2006
    I'm beginning to think next year now (if ever).
     
  40. Seyumi

    Seyumi Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    178
    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2011
    Computex is in about a week, which is usually the most PC-hardware announcement event in the entire year (even more than CES usually). I'm waiting on this to see what direction to take my computer in for this monitor and others.

    I'm hoping we'll have some finalized specs, pricing, and availability on the 55" Alienware OLED that was shown at CES. If I get this monitor i'd have to change my computer desk to something more like a 36" deep dining table instead of a "regular" 24" deep computer desk. I've put a 55" TV on my computer desk before and it's just too close for comfort & practicality. The PC couch-gaming setup won't work for me either.
     
    Last edited: May 23, 2019